On 4/10/2025 3:25 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 06:04:38PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 7:06 PM Kees Cook <k...@kernel.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:49:52PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: >> ... >> >>>> diff --git a/security/lsm_init.c b/security/lsm_init.c >>>> index edf2f4140eaa..981ddb20f48e 100644 >>>> --- a/security/lsm_init.c >>>> +++ b/security/lsm_init.c >>>> @@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ static __initdata const char *lsm_order_cmdline; >>>> static __initdata const char *lsm_order_legacy; >>>> >>>> /* Ordered list of LSMs to initialize. */ >>>> -static __initdata struct lsm_info *lsm_order[MAX_LSM_COUNT + 1]; >>>> static __initdata struct lsm_info *lsm_exclusive; >>>> +static __initdata struct lsm_info *lsm_order[MAX_LSM_COUNT + 1]; >>> I don't care either way, but why re-order these? Just local reverse >>> xmas-tree? >> Sure? >> >> Honestly can't say for certain, at this point in the development >> process I had somewhat resigned myself to having a mess of a patchset >> so I figured this was an opportunity to make it look "nice" (er?) in >> my mind, and I suppose at that point that looked better to me ... ? > Understood. I think I ordered the original way because I was hopefully > we'd remove "exclusive" soon,
In the pipeline. Small values of "soon". > and it felt better to remove it from the > end of a list of variables. *shrug* yay code vibes >
